Traditional garment sizing systems have relied on tailor measurements taken manually from an individual's bodily surfaces. These measurements are then compared with a predefined sizing chart to find the closest size match from a set of standard sizes. With this, a ‘size number’ can be assigned to the individual.
As one skilled in the art will be aware, the total number of sizes in a given size range can vary depending on the garment type and style. One will appreciate that the number of sizes in a given range will increase as the fit requirement increases. For example, the garment fit requirement differences between a pair of loose fitting warm-up sweat pants and a pair of tight fitting jeans exemplify how close fitting styles require more sizes in their size ranges loose fitting styles.
In the last few decades, the apparel industry has adopted a subset of measurements extracted from a larger set of governmentally sponsored body survey measurements. This larger data set has been, and still is, commonly used in anthropometrical research surveys. FIG. 3 provides an example of measurements taken in such surveys. These surveys were conducted by agencies in different countries to provide useful human body data for use by automotive, marine, aerospace, apparel, furniture, and other industries.
The common measurements taken by most major surveys can be categorized in the groupings set forth below.                Girths: Circumference measurements taken around the person's torso or limbs.        Arcs: Measurements that are specific parts or segments of girth measurements. Arcs are linear lengths that do not define the shape of the arc curve accurately. Instead, prior art measuring methods automatically assume that the curve is oval or ellipse shaped. The arcs indicated at 21 and 22 in FIG. 3 are good examples.        Verticals: Measurements of straight linear height distances, typically between a floor surface and various girth lines.        Widths and Lengths: Linear measurements between landmarks and extreme points of a bodily surface.        
As FIG. 6 shows, the garment and apparel industries have created their own sizing systems by taking selective measurements from the larger governmental body survey data set and creating sizing measurement charts. These sizing measurement charts are organized in a table format. The first column of the table lists a set of measurement descriptions (i.e., waist, chest, neck, etc.). Across the top of the table, a sequence of sizes in a particular size range is listed representing the heading of each size column (i.e., small, medium, large, or size numbers, etc.). A standardized value is set forth beneath each designated size heading and column and parallel to each row of measuring descriptions. These standardized values were derived from reports published by various anthropometrical research surveys, and they were further refined using experiences gained from working with customers. As one will appreciate, the sizing values and measuring descriptions sometimes vary between different designers and manufacturers and often depend on their target customer demographics.
One knowledgeable in the art will be aware that commonly used bodily surface measuring methods can be performed manually or with the assistance of mechanical or digital devices. The most common and widely used manual method is carried out with a tailor's measuring tape. In doing so, the person to be measured is asked to stand or sit still while the measurements are taken. Linear distances between landmarks on the body surface are measured and recorded as are torso and limb circumferences.
Mechanical and digital measuring devices include stadiometers, anthropometers, and full body scanners. By way of background, one will note that a full body scanner is commonly defined as any device that is capable of capturing body surface data and representing the captured data in a digital format. This format can, for example, comprise points in an XYZ coordinating system, polygonal mesh, non-uniform rational b-spline surfaces, or wire-frames, all of which can be used in a 3D computer system.
One persistent problem with current sizing systems is that they are founded on the same measurement principles and parameters that were developed by anthropometrical research scientists using body-sizing surveys. It was, and still is, assumed that the measurements gathered using such a methodology offer sufficient body shape data for use by apparel manufacturers. Those that did not completely agree with the assumptions inherent in using survey information were compelled to invent special methods and systems to translate their special measuring data for configuring specially built apparatuses for designing and making garments.
Unfortunately, current measuring systems have typically assumed, incorrectly, that girth circumference measurements are geometrically elliptical shapes and that the measuring path between landmarks are either straight lines or ovally-shaped curves. These assumptions were necessarily made as a result of limitations in the types of measuring devices available and the shear difficulties involved working with irregular organic shapes. Because of these assumptions, the shapes of girth and arc and some width and length measurements often are poorly or incorrectly defined.
One may look, for example, to the tailor ‘Hip’ measurement. The traditional tailor measuring method offers a single measuring unit describing the perimeter of the body surface at the hip line. However, this single measuring unit does not describe the shape of the hip girth. Consequentially, the same hip measurement unit could be used in describing an ‘oval’ shaped hip or a ‘semi-circle’ shaped hip. A pair of pants designed to fit a body with an oval-shaped hip will not properly fit a person with a body having a semi-circular shaped hip. In reality, the cross sectional view of the hip demonstrates the hip does not resemble an ellipse shape. This difference in shape details determines the difference in fit of the garment.
Among the unfortunate results of such inaccurate shape descriptions in current sizing systems is that consumers are reluctant to shop through catalogs and via the Internet. Because current systems force consumers to use traditional size systems when making an order, most catalog retailers inevitably lose the business of those customers who are not willing to take a chance that the ordered clothing will fit properly. Furthermore, even when customers are willing to order clothing under such systems, retailers commonly face high percentages of returns as a result of what is considered to be a poorly fitting garment.
As one would expect, many developers of apparel business applications have attempted and continue to attempt to solve these problems. For example, the following approaches have been disclosed:
Level I: The system displays a 2.5-dimensional (2.5D) virtual model, which is limited to front, side, and back views of a model at eye level, on the retailer's web site that closely resembles the body of the consumer. The 2.5D virtual model is built based on surface measurement information provided by the consumer. With this, various garment styles can be selected and placed on the virtual model, and consumers can see what the garment may look like on that type of body. Disadvantageously, this approach allows visualization only and cannot be used to determine actual fit.Level II: The system displays a 2.5D or 3D virtual model on the web site that closely resembles the body of the consumer. In the 3D virtual model, there are substantially no limitations on how the model can be rotated, viewed, zoomed in or out, rotated throughout 360 degrees about vertical and horizontal axes, or otherwise manipulated. The 3D virtual model is built based on traditional measurement information without the benefit of 3D shape data provided by the customer. Then, the measurements are checked with a sizing database to determine the best-fitting size. A list can be generated of various manufacturer and designer names that have matching sizes. The customer will then have the option of selecting from that list and virtually trying on and visually inspecting garments on the virtual model in 2.5D or 3D. However, as a result of the lack of body shape data descriptions in current sizing systems, the accuracy of the size prediction performed using this method is highly questionable.Level III: A level III system displays a 3D model of the consumer's virtual body and allows the consumer to select any garment style or size and to try it on the virtual body thereby allowing the consumer to check the appearance and fit visually. If the consumer is satisfied with the stationary look of the garment, then the virtual body can be animated to see how the garment's fabric fits and moves during walking, running, bending, and other activities. Unfortunately, such systems cannot be implemented without proper 3D reference matching points for both the virtual garment and the virtual body.
One knowledgeable in the art will appreciate that there are at least three challenges that one must commonly confront with each of the above approaches. First, the visual inspection of how garment styles display on a virtual body inside a computer monitor is an insufficient means for determining fit. For example, some fit requirements simply cannot be seen. Fit is a subjective decision made by a consumer based on how the interior structure of the garment interacts with the person's real body surface. Also, some fit characteristics can be felt only through sensations detected during body movements.
Secondly, some body configurations are not considered optimally shaped to display certain garment styles. The contrast can be exaggerated when the consumer makes comparisons between the optimal display provided by viewing the style on a model in comparison with how the garment looks on his or her actual body. As a result, this approach runs the risk of losing sales and upsetting customers.
Furthermore, apparel retailers naturally seek to display garments in, for example, fashion photographs in fashion magazines and the like in a way that is most appealing and that compliments the consumer's apparel shopping psychology. Garment styling along with subtle environmental themes and facial and body expressions of the models convey very powerful marketing messages to the consumer. Through repetition, many consumers subconsciously associate these subtle but powerful messages with the garments themselves, and the repeated subliminal suggestions alone are enough to make the sale. Most consumers also have a tendency to see themselves selectively in a 2D mirror view. With 3D technology, some consumers can quickly adjust to and feel comfortable seeing themselves in 3D while others may not be prepared to view themselves in such a way. With this, potential sales can be lost when consumers find true 3D views of themselves unappealing.
Advantageously, the present inventor has appreciated the continued need for a system capable of showing the fit of a garment without necessarily displaying the garment on a body or virtual model. The inventor has further appreciated the need for an accurate method for calculating how a selected garment style and size will fit each consumer's unique body shape.
Current 3D CAD systems use adjustable 3D virtual models, but they do not offer accurate shape adjustment features because the system developers have assumed that traditional body measuring methods gather sufficient data to describe body shapes. This lack of available shape control data results in unrealistic virtual try on simulations thereby making it impossible to calculate correct sizing. 3D garments designed from unrealistic virtual models naturally tend to result in poor fitting garment patterns.
In light of the above-described state of the art, one will appreciate that a system providing for accurate 3D shape and size measurement would be useful, and it is still more clear that a system providing still further advantages over the prior art would represent a marked advance.